State ex rel. Cramer v. Brown
| Decision Date | 20 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1556,83-1556 |
| Citation | 7 Ohio St.3d 5,454 N.E.2d 1321 |
| Parties | , 7 O.B.R. 317 The STATE, ex rel. CRAMER, v. BROWN, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Philip W. Cramer, pro se.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., David E. Northrop, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Williams, Columbus, for respondent.
The first two of relator's challenges relate to the ballot language and explanation. Section 1, Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution, dealing with proposals initiated by the General Assembly, provides that " * * * [n]o such case challenging the ballot language, the explanation, or the actions or procedures of the general assembly in adopting and submitting a constitutional amendment shall be filed later than sixty-four days before the election." The sixty-four day limitation was held to apply to initiatives proposed by the electorate as well in State ex rel. Cappelletti, v. Celebrezze (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 1, 3, 411 N.E.2d 193, .
In this case, relator filed his action on October 6, 1983. The election is scheduled for November 8, 1983. Clearly, relator's action herein is time barred for he did not file his action prior to sixty-four days before the election as required by Section 1, Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution.
Similarly, we reject relator's argument that the amendment proposed by Issue 3 would be unconstitutional if approved. It is well-settled that this court will not consider, in an action to strike an issue from the ballot, a claim that the proposed amendment would be unconstitutional if approved, such claim being premature. Pfeifer v. Graves (1913), 88 Ohio St. 473, 104 N.E. 529; paragraph five of the syllabus; Weinland v. Fulton (1918), 99 Ohio St. 10, 121 N.E. 816; Cincinnati v. Hillenbrand (1921), 103 Ohio St. 286, 133 N.E. 556; paragraph two of the syllabus; State ex rel. Marcolin, v. Smith (1922), 105 Ohio St. 570, 138 N.E. 881; State ex rel. Kittel, v. Bigelow (1941), 138 Ohio St. 497, 37 N.E.2d 41 , paragraph one of the syllabus.
Accordingly, the writ prayed for is denied.
Writ denied.
1 Section 1g, Article II, provides in pertinent part:
" * * * The law, or proposed law, or proposed amendment to the constitution, together with the arguments and explanations, not exceeding a total of three hundred words for each, and also the arguments and explanations, not exceeding a total...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Flak v. Betras
..." State ex rel. Walker v. Husted , 144 Ohio St.3d 361, 2015-Ohio-3749, 43 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 16, quoting State ex rel. Cramer v. Brown , 7 Ohio St.3d 5, 6, 454 N.E.2d 1321 (1983).{¶ 13} Just last year, however, this court held that a county board of elections may properly refuse to certify a pro......
-
Hessey v. Burden
...a claim that the proposed amendment would be unconstitutional if approved, such claim being premature. State ex rel. Cramer v. Brown, 7 Ohio St.3d 5, 6, 454 N.E.2d 1321, 1322 (1983) (citations omitted); see also Diaz v. Board of County Commissioners, 502 F.Supp. 190, 193-194 (S.D.Fla.1980);......
-
Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections
...that the proposed amendment would be unconstitutional if approved, such claim being premature." State, ex rel. Cramer, v. Brown (1983), 7 Ohio St.3d 5, 6, 7 OBR 317, 318, 454 N.E.2d 1321, 1322, citing Pfeifer v. Graves (1913), 88 Ohio St. 473, 104 N.E. 529, paragraph five of the syllabus; W......
-
Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt
...law, such as the United States Constitution. State ex rel. Dahl v. Lange, 661 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Mo. banc 1983); State ex rel. Cramer v. Brown, 7 Ohio St.3d 5, 454 N.E.2d 1321, 1322 (1983). Our single function is to ask whether the constitutional requirements and limits of power, as expressed in ......